Re: RFC: kernel coding style: prefer array to &array[0] ?

Julia Lawall
2015-07-01T06:10:24Z

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Joe Perches wrote:

> It seems most in-kernel uses are 'array' rather than '&array[0]'
>
> Most of the time, using array is simpler to read than &array[0].
>
> Exceptions exists when addresses for consecutive members are
> used like func(&array[0], &array[1]);
>
> Should this preference be put into checkpatch and/or CodingStyle?

&array[0] looks complicated to me.

julia

> Here's a possible checkpatch --strict addition
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 90e1edc..362a9d8 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -5492,6 +5492,12 @@ sub process {
> }
> }
>
> +# check for address of array[0] (not '&& array[0]' or &array[0].member)
> + if ($sline =~ /[^\&]&\s*($Ident\s*(?:(?:\-\>|\.)\s*$Ident\s*)*)\s*\[\s*0\s*\]\s*(?!\[|\.|\-\>)/) {
> + CHK("ADDRESSOF_ARRAY",
> + "Using addressof array '$1' index [0] may be simpler as '$1'\n" . $herecurr);
> + }
> +
> # check for semaphores initialized locked
> if ($line =~ /^.\s*sema_init.+,\W?0\W?\)/) {
> WARN("CONSIDER_COMPLETION",
>
>
>